Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Go on record. Who still wants Watson?


Sasquatch
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

The people I've seen on pff, ESPN, Twitter, nfl writers all seem to think Wilson or Fields both would go 1 in other years without the presence of a John Elway prospect like Lawrence, and Fields just ran a 4.41 for a QB. They pass the eye test, right now it seems like overanalysis is the issue Fields is facing (considering people are trying to say he maybe can't read defenses when his offense has nfl dudes and the routes take a while to develop) but I guess we'll seeeee

One thing is for sure, you very rarely see a prospect of this caliber as the 3rd QB off the board. If we've identified him as the guy, I'm fine with trading up to get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

One thing is for sure, you very rarely see a prospect of this caliber as the 3rd QB off the board. If we've identified him as the guy, I'm fine with trading up to get him.

He clearly has rough edges but he also looks like he has it all and the fact that accuracy is a consistent pro in every eval seems good to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tepper schemed this up so they’d cut him then once his name is cleared we just sign him for free. Genius.

 

 

Seriously, I would want him for the right price still if we are confident he will be allowed to play without a long suspension or stay on the exempt list. Don’t care what players do off the field if they aren’t criminal matters and don’t affect the on field performance, frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um yeah, let's just stay away.  Everything from every side of the Houston ordeals this offseason is toxic.  That organization, the players, their reps, the hot shots in that town, that basketball team will probably get upset in the tourney too.

Lance/Fields/Wilson it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do your homework--if he is damaged goods but there is nothing more, he might be worth the gamble.  I trade stocks--you don't buy them when they are high---you wait for them to get beaten down.  I'd low ball some offer, leave it on the table until I resolve me QB issue, and decrease it every 48 hours or so.

Would it be worth betting on him to withstand the storm?  Even if it takes a year, you got him cheap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bronn said:

The well has dried up imho. None of the rookies are guaranteed to even have the talent level of Stafford. Have we been mentioned seriously talking about anyone other than Watson? I don’t think we have.

I still think Sam Darnold in a new situation with talent/coaching is no bigger gamble than some of the draft prospects 

If he could be had for something that isn’t a first 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ImaginaryKev said:

I don't trust Darnold as a starter bc he used to turn the ball over a lot at USC and i was suspicious of him coming into the NFL but I see the appeal

Rather spend a 2nd on Darnold than the 8th on Jones or even Lance. 
 

I’m not exactly a Darnold homer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want him on our team but...

a - guy is disgruntled. I don't want a player who believes he should be a part of upper management decision making. Who is to say he would not do something similar here with our team if we didn't hire the people he believes we should hire? This is my biggest issue with the man. 

b - Not for 3 1st round picks.

c- I would rather trade a first round pick and draft a QB with no baggage that we can groom to be the QB we want and need. 

 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...